4 ms·
I'm still on the fence with these distributed log/queue hybrids. From a theoretical perspective it seems these are excellent. I just have this nagging suspicion
by reggieband 7y ago
I'm still on the fence with these distributed log/queue hybrids. From a theoretical perspective it seems these are excellent. I just have this nagging suspicion that there is some even-worse problem architectures based on these systems will harbor. This kind of ambivalence is something I find myself having to battle more and more in my career as I age. Most of the time the hype around new design/development patterns leads to a worse situation. Very rarely it leads to a significant improvement. I dislike that my first impression looking at a system like this is risk aversion.
- mpmpmpmp 7y agoI totally get where you're coming from as I feel like that alot too. But the fact that you are thinking about risk and business value over working on cool new tech should be a positive for the ventures you are a part of.
- zomglings 7y agoYour risk aversion seems justified. It seems reasonable to estimate that very few teams are in the position of needing the kind of scale/scalability that something like Apache Pulsar offers. They are much more likely to be in either a state where they will not put Pulsar through its paces or where they already have a solution in place that serves their scale/scalability needs. When a team you are on starts discussing switching over to a technology like Pulsar because of its amazing benefits, unless your pants are on fire, it is much more likely than not that you do not stand to gain much from the benefits that such software brings but you are accepting the maintenance burden that it represents.